Photovoice Methods Informing Participatory Action Research Involving Older Adults in Canada: A Scoping Review Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Although the photovoice method has been used with older adults, relatively little is known about how this approach has been used with aging populations in Canada, and what influence it has had on individuals and the community more broadly. Since photovoice is an opportunity to enable social change, this scoping review aims to describe older adults’ involvement in research that uses photovoice in Canada and its related impacts. Methods: It will follow the JBI methodology, including conducting a quality assessment of the papers. The databases to be searched will include Embase, CINAHL, Medline, AgeLine, and PsycINFO. The inclusion criteria are studies that include older adults as the population, use photovoice as the data collection method, and are published in Canada. It will be reported against the guidance provided in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Discussion: This scoping review will provide an in-depth overview of English-language, peer-reviewed publications on studies that used photovoice with older adults in Canada, including a description of the use of participatory research approaches in this context. Scoping Review Registration: Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/fevmh/ ).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes | Systematic review | high |
| gpt | Metaresearch Domain: Methods · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes | Systematic review | high |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.175 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.074 | 0.016 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".